What are your views on pathway independence? Does such a thing exist and what does that mean to you?

A) On the face of it pathway independence may not exist. I end up at different times at the same place by picking a different route such as the "scenic one." Please lets have a nice discussion about this.

Why we are not united? , it s stupid to fight each other , is not better to spent our energy for grow up together? All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that cause most of the problem on the Earth like the war , economy and political crisis, the hungry , ...
We are Human , we not need a bigger television or beautiful dress , we need to understand to stay togheder

> it is stupid to fight each other, is not better to spent our energy for grow up together?
No it isn't. Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself. Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so.

> All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that causes most of the problems on the Earth like the war, economy and political crisis, the hungry, ...
Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward. Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity.

Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did.

No no and no , fight to each other can only take is in a slowly ruins.

You said "Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward". Yae i think the same but we grow up only if that discovery is shared with all .

" Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity".this is true , i cant say nothing more

" Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself".We have to change that!

" Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so".mmm ok

"Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did". Yea fucking true , the religion can only divide us

I have an example for you : if in the future we can survive only with a specifical discovery , you think that this discovery is shared with all to survive together? I dont think so .
This is a immoral act , think about that

Oh yeah... Cracked was technically right, but there is no proof (thus reason to think) that there is anything above all the subatomic mechanics measuring and wielding them (thus no reason to live for them)...

Meanwhile, atoms and molecules create a complex structure of neurology that is a mostly closed system. So it is close enough to free-will that it only matters when applying physics.

>>13025So "thinkers" (as you define them) don't think that because they're thinkers? I know you have a more convincing way of explaining what you mean that doesn't involve the fallacy of begging the question...either that or this is all bad-faith trolling.

>>13025Then what do “thinkers” believe is the answer? Or does your “thinker” believe there is no answer? Can’t you argue that you will have an inherently better and happier life with this hedonistic ideal?

Such a website would be straightforward to toss together. There are versions of wiki software that would seem ideal for such a task.

Of course, a Research Paper Wiki would have all the same strengths and weaknesses of better known projects such as Wikipedia. Namely, you create the potential to democratize knowledge, accelerating the process of peer review and the spread of new discoveries. In practice, however, the project might ultimately reflect the biases of a few dedicated/stubborn sperglords. This could take the form of wikigroaning or of more serious methodological and philosophical bias.

Despite their flaws I still tend to use and appreciate various wiki websites. I like to think that I can acknowledge their limitations and biases while still getting pieces of information that would be much more inconvenient to track down otherwise. I'd support the general principle of the project, though I'd pay close attention to the execution of and the culture surrounding it.

>>12989> mean to you
I prefer its universal uses, that the traditional persons can use. Liken that, I am a fan of its' enforcing freedom to navigate without authoritarian (read; consequentialists) implications come down from businesses or governments...

But personally, I prefer it for the opportunity of original thought. Casting off the shackles of moderate conformity to speak, some people say a person is known when they have skin in the game and I say the only test is power and freedom.

I would say that the libertines are correct, but I prefer rationalism with my egoism and hedonism.

Ignoring what the older posters focused on and getting to the heart of the issue, signs and symbols are a convenient way to categorize and generalize people and their positions, which the human brain likes because that allows it to be more efficient about its usage (see cognitive biases and heuristics); however, these things can also contribute to a muddled up view of the world and the individuals that comprise it, which is shown by identity politics and discrimination running rampant throughout the world. People may learn that you identify as part of a group or carry around a symbol representing a loosely-defined ideology, and they may assume things about you that aren't true. What this quote tells us, if anything, is that people focus more on the title of a person's worldview than the content.

>>12413Yeah? You see some fundamental concepts in math. There is a thing caused an Is-Ought Problem. Liken that, the sophists had a concept called a praxim (simple reflexive trained doing) which seems to reflext the individuals' connection of manifesting meaning from a thing. Circumstance to action, kinda like the buddhists' concept of "right action" except minus the mysticism or implied autistic morality.

>>12414Absurdism is the impotent rubbery one of philosophies, abject denial of reality means irrelvance. At least (real) skeptics start measuring things and acknowledge that something can be approximated.

I prefer relativism, even moral relativism can acknowledge the axioms of an objective reality and logic. So, I firmly take the stance that the inconsistency (past literal language barriers) of communicating ideas is because intelligence can be used to create elaborate justification for complexes and wisdom isn't needed for happiness, so emotional honesty (to oneself at least) is not guaranteed or necessarily desired by the other person.

I'm thinking of joining the United Methodist Church, because a lot of Zen Buddhism and basically all of Yoga seems to have be commodified (which is pretty far from the insights and teachings). Do any of you guys have experiences and tips with this sort of thing?

P.S.: Abrahamic religions are far from ideal. I just might prefer Methodism to Satanism and Nihilism, and think that movements like Humanism are for people who don't struggle to pay rent.

You're already in dangerous intellectual territory with "Abrahamic religions are far from my ideal belief system, but fuck it I'll give one a go regardless." That makes for an uphill battle to maintain any sort of consistent long term belief and fulfillment.

That being said, mainline Protestant churches in general are the ones where it seems easiest to enjoy the social club aspect of church without having to go too deep into actual beliefs. Individual congregations vary, but that can be a good thing insofar as it lets you pick and choose the best fit for you. Another choice to consider is the Episcopal Church, which contains within it a wide variety of beliefs and practices that you could get away with.

How come "continental philosophers" end up making such common statements like, "don't think about it too much," "people are shitty," "keep on trucking," "hang in there!" Even after all of their pondering, they come up with wisdom that anyone over the age of 50 can tell you?

>>12787Because insight can be reduced to banality, that's why it's wisdom, and not knowledge. Continental asks the question regressively, from abstract banality, towards an infinitely specific why. The product is delivered in the shortest form. Keep digging, heideggers concept of opening is like digging deeper and deeper into a wound, whilst you don't notice that the wound is closing together around your finger while you go deeper. Hence it bears a certain identity with analytical philosophy. Which is often overlooked in the latter tradition. They all rely on the same tradition, which includes Kant. Don't forget. Sometimes analytical philosophy is characterized by a desire to try and give answers, where as the continental tradition is said to be asking the same question over and over again. Something that both traditions might benefit from, is pondering the notion that giving an answer in many a sense is presupposing, and furthermore asking a question, and that asking a question equally in many ways is an answer. For example, "philosophy is asking questions!" is giving an answer to the philosophical question "What is philosophy", and saying "philosophy is giving answers!" is presupposing the same question, and assuming that there are more philosophical questions that need be posed before an answer can be given.

The distinction is being destabilized, not that it is outright idiotic, or unfruitful just looking at the division of labor, and the fruitful aspect of disagreement. Ideally you read and try to understand both.

Also, if you read Heideggers "modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics" and all you get is "hang in there", you should consider picking up another plato dialogue and some Aristotle before reading any more post-scholastic philosophy, which is a sincere point, and not a dick move. Or spend a little more time with a couple of anthologies.

There's a reason why Carnap spent his time trying to refute Heideggers "What is metaphysics". You don't reduce on a guy you think an idiot.

>>12882>because insight can be reduced to banality
I don't know if that's true in all cases. I think these philosophers offered more specific insights that are invaluable and perhaps impossible to reduce.

I'm more frustrated that I can read dozens of these books and not know what to do with myself. *My* interest in them is supposed to be practical, not scholarly.

Maybe I didn't learn anything, because I already share their mentality. I did read a philosophy book written by a Muslim in the year 1100 or so, and that actually gave me something to chew on.

Hopefully I'm being clearer now. You guys all had great points anyway.

It's to get it to take affect. Being in analysis paralysis, sophmore slump, depression, writer's block, what have you involves those things we encounter in them to be reconciled or coped with. Or in general the existential crisis or the thing that pushes you into the examination in the self examined life. Either way that's also going to include taking on a million common sentiments found in that struggle.

>>12966because it is obvious that females and minority groups are disadvantaged in many ways, but whether or not this should be society's main focus or your life's main focus is what's really up for debate